Evolution or God
- Thread starter Steven Rimmington
- Start date
Soldato
Just watched the debate video from the OPs post. Dear god, that Kent Hovind (creationist)... no words... There is just no way anyone get someone like that to understand anything. It is embarrassing to have people like him as part of our species sorry, I mean, our "kind". I was a hard watch.
Last edited:
Then you don't believe in the Bible, in which case, you can't be a catholic (practising), although to be fair, Catholics are all wrong anyway, worshiping Mary over Jesus (LOL)
Man of Honour
Religion isn't about morality. It's about obedience, which authoritarians often frame as morality but it isn't. Religions have framed killing, stealing and pretty much everything else as moral as long as it serves the purposes of that religion.
Morality itself always exists in social animals. It's necessary to have any sort of society. It's more complex in humans than other animals because of our higher intellect and larger, more complex societies, but morality boils down to what makes a society work. Whether that's a pack of dogs, a tribe of semi-nomadic hunter-gatherer humans, a village of agrarian humans, a city, a country, whatever the scale is. It's a requirement in order to have the benefits of a society and almost everyone understands that. Life is generally better for everyone if there's as little murdering, stealing, etc, as possible. That sort of morality is generally broken only by people who feel (and often actually are) neglected by society or people who are genuinely sociopathic (and not always even then, since the benefits can be understood purely intellectually and don't require caring about anyone else).
I think that the fake morality of religion does more harm than good because it often clashes with the actual morality of a functioning society. Homosexuality is a good example in modern times. People persecuted solely because of the fake morality of religion. A lot of suffering for no purpose at all other than the expression of power.
Soldato
When I was a kid I lived with my grandparents (parents died in a car accident when I was 7) and the local Vicar who was friends with my grandparents became my legal guardian in case my grandparents passed before I was 18. I wasn't religious but went to church with my Gs as you do. Barry (the vicar) told me all about the Bible even though I wasn't interested. It was more to hear or see both sides of the argument. He told me to disregard anything in the Old Testament as it was impossible to prove. Where as the New Testament, he said it was more probable, not all, but many aspects of it was. There was a man called Jesus, he most likely performed slight of hand or other magic to persuade people of his 'story' about being the son of God etc. He told me the miracles he performed, feeding the five thousand and curing people were more than likely exaggerated as time went on and the current version at the time of the scriptures being recorded were far from what happened.
He studied religion at Oxford as it was interesting to him, he became a vicar and being a nice man to others he wanted to help. Making people feel happy and included, that is what made him become what he was. He held his mass and did his sermons to make people secure.
Barry was well into space stuff and the like. Great man, like a dad to me.
Associate
Last edited:
Soldato
How's about both God AND evolution?
God decided to create the big bang and it all went from there, maybe?
What if God is Dark Energy?
God decided to create the big bang and it all went from there, maybe?
What if God is Dark Energy?
Man of Honour
That argument makes no sense at all. I've seen it used quite often and it's utterly bizarre. It blatantly contradicts itself by relying on the existence of something that was not created (the creator). So the argument disproves itself and is completely meaningless.
Also, many religions have their god(s) creating from something, not nothing. Including the Abrahamic religions (according to the oldest known versions of the Abrahamic creation story) but saying so is controversial nowadays.
It's pretty simple. We (humans) know we fear the unknown. It's part of the human psyche. If we pertain to understand everything, including faith and God, then we are either as equal to God, or God. As we are not either, it is also fully plausible that we are "suppressed" from full knowledge of all things.
Man of Honour
You raise an interesting point. I mean none of the religious people or events I attended around religion struck me to be particularly about obedience, but I can appreciate that the more orthodox and strict religions for sure have a "do this or else" mantra around them. I'm not suggesting that religion necessarily gave us morality - but I think it certainly embraced it and amplified it, at least from the experience I've seen, even if only a little.
I think some religions homosexuality was never blackmarked. I mean heck some scientists (non-religious) deemed homosexuality as a mental condition - so you can't put all the onus on religion alone, there's more to it than that.
I don't disagree per se with what you say, but I think the term "fake morality" is probably a little sweeping and generalistic. Certainly the Abrahamic religions are more guilty of demonising demographics compared to others, I'd agree there.
Soldato
ok, well seems you know more that all the priests and religious teachers i had growing up. not sure what the worshiping mary over jesus is about you'll have to enlighten me.
Man of Honour
Obedience is still part of the others, but much less crudely done. Also a lot more carrot and less stick.
I think it's the other way around - that some people have added morality to religion.
Scientists who lived in a society dominated by a religion that condemned homosexuality. Scientists are not immune from socialisation, especially when outside of hard science.
A little sweeping, perhaps, but it's the best phrasing I could come up with for orders framed as morals.
To clarify, I'm not saying that theists are amoral. I'm saying that religion is amoral.
I find a lot of religious groups like to portray themselves as open, tolerant and friendly, to get people on the hook and/or how they present themselves externally, but the inside layer tends to be quite different with tight rules and anyone questioning the established wisdom and order of things quickly ostracised, etc.
I've been to weddings, funerals, etc. run by Christian brethren groups/churches which relatives attend and the way the portray themselves at the event is vastly different to how I know they operate day to day from conversations with relatives.
You do get some groups/religions which are more laid back as well.
Then you get groups like the [Plymouth] exclusive brethren who are almost entirely closed off on the outside and run by strict rules and obedience. All of my gran's siblings except here were in the Plymouth Brethren or closely related closed brethren groups and it was weird at things like funerals (non-religious ones) as they'd turn up with a minder and only be allowed to wave/say just hello and goodbye from a distance - any socialising or even eating together as a group was forbidden.
Doesn't hold up well when you include the [Biblical] Apocrypha.
Last edited:
Soldato
I don't know but reality seems more likely to exist without agency. Religion is a man made construct to enforce control over the population and try to explain something which those providing it, cannot explain.
Man of Honour
Oh I agree I was brought up in a Greek Orthodox household which is very high churchy and very superstitious. It wasn't for me at all. I mean in our small town I know and am good friends with the local priest, we go out for a meal from time to time, and we go round to his house (in the summer as he has a pool and our kids love it), and we never talk about religion - we talk about normal day-to-day stuff. So I've seen the "normal" side of it and the more in your face do this and nothing else behaviours.
I think a lot of the CofE priests are fare more progressive and modern and definitely less preachy and more pragmatic. I think a lot of religions are moving in that direction - not all of course. Some religions are of course a bit more spiritual than necessarily pious.
However I know we all have different experiences and I'm not suggesting that either is best.
As for evolution vs god - I can't remember the last priest that was a creationist - but I'm sure there's a lot of it still around.
Man of Honour
What a load of nonsense, the Pope certainly doesn't believe the Earth is 6000 years old especially since he's got his own Vatican Astronomers and Scientists.
Whether he believes Adam & Eve are 6000 years old is another matter.
Soldato
I think the argument is saying that an outside force, unknown to us, created the earth.
The alternative is that everything we see is all that existed.
So its for the people to explain evolution of the creation of the planet, something that as far as we know as never happened anywhere else.
Commissario
John Cleese, Michael Palin, Terry Gilliam and Eric Idle?As long as it's illustrated and narrated by the pythons!
Soldato
That's the ticket. And can follow it with a rendition of the four yorkshiremen.
Man of Honour
The argument is that the existence of anything proves the existence of a creator (whatever god or gods the speaker believes in) because nothing can exist without being created. Which negates itself because it includes the assumption of something existing without having been created - the creator. It's flimsy sophistry.
The alternative is acknowledging that we don't know how the universe came into existence or even if it did so (as opposed to having existed for all time). People who believe that their god did it should acknowledge that it's their belief, rather than pretending it's impossible for any other explanation to exist.
I don't know what you mean by "evolution of the creation of the planet". Evolution is change over time, so are you referring to changes in stories about the creation of the planet?
We know that other planets exist. Almost certainly lots of them. Probably a thousand billion billion just in the observable universe. So it's not the case that as far as we know the creation of a planet has never happened anywhere else. I don't understand what you're saying.